Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1999 Dec;189(6):554-9.
doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00207-0.

Management of anastomotic leakage after nondiverted large bowel resection

Affiliations

Management of anastomotic leakage after nondiverted large bowel resection

A Alves et al. J Am Coll Surg. 1999 Dec.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the natural history of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resection and supraperitoneal anastomosis without temporary stoma.

Study design: Medical records from 1990 to 1997 were studied; 655 consecutive patients underwent colonic or rectal resection (without stoma). Patients were divided into two groups: those with clinical anastomotic leakage confirmed by laparotomy (group 1) and those without anastomotic leakage (group 2). Postoperative clinical and biologic findings were compared between the two groups.

Results: Anastomotic leakage occurred in 39 of 655 patients (6%). Clinically suspected anastomotic leakage was only confirmed by contrast radiography in 13 of 24 patients (54%), and by CT in 8 of 9 patients (89%). Significantly more patients in group 1 than group 2 had the following: fever (> 38 degrees C) on day 2 (p < 0.001); absence of bowel action on day 4 (p < 0.001); diarrhea before day 7 (p < 0.001); collection of more than 400 mL of fluid through abdominal drains from day 0 to day 3 (p < 0.01); renal failure on day 3 (p < 0.02); and leukocytosis after day 7 (p < 0.02). Among the 39 patients in group 1, 28 (71%) had at least one of these clinical or biologic manifestations before day 5, but the mean delay for reoperation was only 8 days. The combination of signs observed before day 5 was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage, from 18% with two signs to 67% with three signs. Overall mortality rate was 2% (13 of 655) and was significantly higher in group 1 than group 2: 5 of 39 (13%) versus 8 of 616 (1%, p < 0.001). In patients with anastomotic leakage, death occurred in 5 of 23 patients (22%) reoperated on after day 5, versus 0 of 11 patients (0%) reoperated on before day 5 (NS). Univariate analysis showed that three clinical characteristics were associated with a significantly high risk of mortality after reoperation for anastomotic leakage: age greater than 65 years (p < 0.01), American Anesthesiologist Association score greater than 3 (p < 0.05), and blood transfusions during the first operation (p < 0.02).

Conclusions: In our study, some postoperative clinical and biologic signs were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage. The knowledge of these findings might help in the early diagnosis and management of patients with anastomotic leakage after large bowel resection.

PubMed Disclaimer